Thursday, September 30, 2004

Is it an ethical violation for an attorney to say that sometimes the Ohio Supreme Court is a bunch of wimps? Does that fall under the category of judicial criticism that is supposed to be a discipline-worthy offense?

I have been following the case of the man who owed $38,000 in child support (he fathered seven children by five different mothers). He was found guilty of a criminal offense for failure to pay and was ordered not to father any more children. Of course, the case went on appeal all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court. Rather than simply address the fundamental issue of whether such a sentence is constitutional, the Ohio Supreme Court, in all its wisdom, sent the case back to the trial judge on the grounds that no escape provision had been set that would allow the father to end the restriction (perhaps upon paying his obligation). So the trial judge is going to get another crack at it. What do you think he might do? I guess it will depend on whether he's as irritated by the Ohio Supreme Court's refusal to tackle the tough issues as I am.

No comments: